The Discourse of Negotiation – A Genre-Based Model

Abstract

The article proposes a generic model for a type of communicative discourse: the discourse of negotiation based on the concepts and methodology of the pragma dialectic theory of argumentation. The first part defines negotiation as an argumentative type of discourse and argues in favour of a generic analysis. In what follows a short presentation of the pragma-dialectic theory is made outlining its major benefit for the genre analysis, i.e. its normative and descriptive nature. The most important concepts of this theory - the critical discussion, the concept of relevance and the role of arguments - are analysed within the framework of the discourse of negotiation. The proposed generic model comprises stages, moves, steps and speech acts which are most frequently encountered in the discourse of negotiation. The article concludes with a parallel between the critical discussion and the negotiation model proposed in which the major differences between the two are highlighted. Although the paper is largely theoretical offering few examples, it claims that the study of generic structures for different types of discourses can be extremely useful in the ESP or EAP classes. The reason is that such an analysis highlights not only the lexical and grammatical aspects, but also the overall structure, the structure of arguments, their role and relevance in a text type thus contributing to the development of communicative competence.

Headnote

Abstract:

The article proposes a generic model for a type of communicative discourse: the discourse of negotiation based on the concepts and methodology of the pragma dialectic theory of argumentation.

The first part defines negotiation as an argumentative type of discourse and argues in favour of a generic analysis. In what follows a short presentation of the pragma-dialectic theory is made outlining its major benefit for the genre analysis, i.e. its normative and descriptive nature.

The most important concepts of this theory - the critical discussion, the concept of relevance and the role of arguments - are analysed within the framework of the discourse of negotiation. The proposed generic model comprises stages, moves, steps and speech acts which are most frequently encountered in the discourse of negotiation.

The article concludes with a parallel between the critical discussion and the negotiation model proposed in which the major differences between the two are highlighted.

Although the paper is largely theoretical offering few examples, it claims that the study of generic structures for different types of discourses can be extremely useful in the ESP or EAP classes. The reason is that such an analysis highlights not only the lexical and grammatical aspects, but also the overall structure, the structure of arguments, their role and relevance in a text type thus contributing to the development of communicative competence.

Keywords: pragma dialectics, critical discussion, argumentative-bargaining stage, relevance, analytical overview

Introduction

The aim of the present work is to establish a model for the analysis of negotiations from the generic perspective that should be able to describe and to evaluate instances of real life negotiations.

The rapid development of the discourse of negotiation is closely related to the spread of globalisation in almost every field of human activity. Globalisation phenomena bring together people from various cultural backgrounds pursuing the same or apparently the same goals and the need for developing strategies that help them avoid misunderstandings and solve conflicts has become of utmost importance.

Due to the frequency with which people resort to negotiation today in order to solve the myriad problems of everyday life in a host of different settings, several questions arise: 1) What are the patterns that allow for the identification of negotiations as a distinct type of communicative activity? 2) What methodological frameworks should be used in order to single out those prototypical features that are instinctively recognised as negotiation by people involved in it? Is a discourse or a generic approach more appropriate? 3) Which aspects are culturally determined in negotiations? Do they affect the overall structure, the rhetorical content or the linguistic stylistic characteristics only?

The literature on negotiation is voluminous, and the research work on negotiation has developed along three directions. The majority of the research work has been conducted in the field of economics, sociology or psychology and its aim is to link various variables (social, psychological ones) to the outcomes of negotiation, to determine via mathematical models or via statistical analyses the best ways of obtaining successful negotiations.

A second direction is that of discourse analysis and here the studies are scarce. Although researchers belonging to this trend view negotiation as a genre, in the literature we have managed to consult so far, no attempt to study negotiations within a generic framework has been made. Up to know research on the discourse of negotiations has examined aspects concerning style, argumentation techniques, speech acts, and the sequential development of negotiations. These analyses are descriptive and do not perform an evaluative analysis of the discursive phenomenon.

A third approach that deals with negotiation is the domain of English for Special Purposes. If the first two approaches are aimed at training professionals in the field of negotiation, this last approach aims at teaching non-native speakers to negotiate in English. That is why the ESP approach is primarily concerned with the linguistic manifestations of the rhetorical and organisational features of the communicative event. According to Swales (1990) it overemphasises, register at the expense of other features, like genre conventions. A large numbers of textbooks are dedicated to Business English and within this topic a limited space is allotted to negotiation. These works single out only aspects pertaining to general communicative acts like introductions, arguing, how to make offers, how to accept and reject offers, a.s.o. Their main concern is with stylistic aspects of the language and to a lesser extent with the persuasive aspect.

That is why the need for a more integrated approach to negotiations becomes manifest. Such an approach should broaden the view on negotiation, should focus on the way in which the linguistic and rhetoric features concur in order to achieve the communicative purpose and to shape the structural patterns of negotiations.

Having in view all the above mentioned aspects, the aim of the present paper is to construct a theoretical model of negotiation based on the concept of genre. Such models will have to describe the patterns that compose the overall generic structure of the negotiation, to outline the connection between the various levels of this hierarchical structure and to offer an evaluative approach to everyday instances of negotiations.

The basic assumption behind the postulation of a theoretical model for negotiation is that it is a universal communicative activity and that the differences that may appear are more of a stylistic nature. They do not alter the basic generic structure.

In order to attain such an aim a proper methodology has to be chosen one that is suitable for the investigation of the complex nature of the negotiation discourse.

Negotiations have a predominantly persuasive nature due to their main purpose, that of reaching a settlement or inducing different actions. Unlike other types of persuasive discourse, negotiations presuppose a persuasive process that goes both ways as each party tries to influence the other and to avoid being influenced at the same time.

Negotiation requires an analytical framework able to capture its process-like dialogic nature and its argumentative character.

Researchers concerned with the study of professional genres (Swales 1990, Bahtia, 1993, Scollon, 1995, Superceanu, 1998) have performed pertinent analyses of genres belonging mainly to the written type (e.g. Swales and Superceanu on the research article) and their generic analysis is suited for these types of texts. They perform a multilevel analysis starting with the outline of an overall general structure made up of moves and steps (e.g. Introduction - Methods - Results - Discussions - Conclusions in the case of the research article) followed by an analysis of the rhetorical features, both inventional and dispositional through which the respective structure becomes manifest. The analysis is then supplemented with a detailed linguistic analysis and with ethnological and pragmatic information about the discourse community that produces the respective genres. This type of analysis has proved to be very useful for written text types like the scientific article. These texts are highly structured products, in which the dialogic character is somewhat less pregnant than in negotiations that belong to the class of dialogic dispute like oral genres.

Although the proposed model for the negotiation genre makes use of some of the findings of researchers belonging to professional written genres, in order to capture the process like, dynamic interactional aspect of negotiation the methodological framework chosen is that postulated by the pragma-dialectical theory.

The pragma-dialectical theory integrates salient findings from speech act theory, conversational maxims and interactional discourse analysis into an analytical framework that is able both to describe argumentative dialogic discourse and to evaluate it. This is achieved by means of the analytical overview, a procedure that reconstructs real life argumentative instances of discourse revealing their basic underlying component parts: the standpoint, the arguments, the conclusions. The reconstructed texts are then compared to a theoretical ideal model of argumentative discourse - the critical discussion - that acts as a grid against which dialogic discourse can be assessed.

Negotiation. Definition of the Term

Despite the variety of forms in which it can be encountered, negotiation has basically two complementary meanings (C. Thuderoz, 2002): a) bargaining (with the Romanian equivalent "tocmeală") referring mainly to the exchanges occurring within trade; and b) negotiation seen as a social activity in which the central aim is to reach a 'wise agreement' (Fisher et al., 1991) based on collectively set up rules. In practice, both the former restricted meaning and the second more general one are often used interchangingly.

Such disputes over beliefs sometimes get resolved through persuasion. Other times, however they are solved through negotiation. The difference between a persuasive discourse and negotiation lies in the fact that persuasion implies that one party is convinced by the other party's beliefs, whereas negotiation means that each party still believes the truth of the propositions he/ she was originally defending, but each sees the need to get on with it, so all agree to certain propositions 'as if true 'for the particular purpose at hand. The latter process is what we call bargaining over beliefs (Goodin & Brennan, 2001: 2).

In most cases negotiation in its general meaning subsumes bargaining, and there are very few instances when only a purely bargaining process occurs in which only the distribution of goods or services is at stake.

Defining Negotiation as a Genre

Scholars like Swales (1990), Bhatia (1993), Scollon and Scollon (1995) have studied genres in the non-literary, professional communication. Their major concern was with written discourse (scientific articles, business correspondence) and less with spoken discourse.

Swales (1990) gave a comprehensive definition of genre as follows:

A genre comprises a class of communicative events, the members of which share some set of communicative purposes. These purposes are recognized by the expert members of the parent discourse community and thereby constitute the rationale for the genre. This rationale shapes the schematic structure of the discourse and influences and constrains choice of content and style. Communicative purpose is both a privileged criterion and one that operates to keep the scope of a genre as here-conceived narrowly focused on comparable rhetorical action. In addition to purpose, exemplars of a genre exhibit various patterns of similarity in terms of structure, style, content and intended audience. If all high probability expectations are realized, the exemplar will be viewed as prototypical by the parent discourse community. (Swales, 1990: 58)

The definition establishes the key elements that in the authorţs view define genre: the discourse community, the communicative purpose, similar structural and content patterns, as well as a common style. This definition was applied by Swales to the study of written scientific genres (e.g. the research article) but we shall further on examine if the definition holds for the negotiation genre by analyzing each of the key elements of the definition and how they relate to negotiations.

Bhatia's (1993) definition of genre highlights the conventionalized structure, the fact that the discourse community can acquire generic features. It also alludes to the possibility of manipulating these structures, of using them to create new structures or of using them for different purposes. His definition clearly focuses on professional genres:

Genre is a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purpose(s) identified and mutually understood by the members of the professional or academic community in which it regularly occurs. Most often it is highly structured and conventionalized with constraints on allowable contributions in terms of their intent, position, form, and functional value. These constraints, however, are often exploited by the expected members of the discourse community to achieve private intentions within the framework of socially recognized purpose(s). (Bhatia, 1993: 16)

Scollon's (1995) definition of genre points to the set of specific speech acts which serve to build up the generic structure. It also stresses the importance of similar topics, of the setting and of a certain discourse community that uses the respective genre texts.

By genre we mean any speech event, whether it is spoken or in written form, which has fairly predictable sets of speech acts, participants, topics, settings, or other regularly occurring conventional forms. Much of the education that now exists for professional communication focuses on the forms of a small set of genres normally in use. (Scollon, 1995: 25)

In the case of written genres such as the scientific article the rhetorical disposition of the material and the inventional analysis is preferable because "generic specificity manifests at one more level, that of content. It follows, then, that genre analysis should be supplemented with the inventional analysis of the rhetorical means whereby the genre writer produces content to realize his communicative purposes" (R. Superceanu, 1998: 35). Negotiations, however, have a highly interactional nature; they need a methodology that focuses on process and less on product. Therefore a rhetorical analysis that is concerned with the product needs to be supplemented with a methodology for the analysis of the dialogical process/ like nature of negotiation.

The interplay between persuasion and conviction, between rhetoric and dialectic is present in most texts that are argumentative. We believe however that the dialectical aspect prevails in dialogic texts and the dialectical structure best illustrates the cognitive pattern behind such texts. The analysis of such argumentative dialogic texts has to be both descriptive and normative. In order to be able to posit a superstructure for negotiation, a three level analysis has been proposed: a) an evaluative argumentative analysis in order to obtain an outline of the sections moves and steps based on the various argumentative tasks and sub-tasks of the communicative event; b) a rhetorical analysis highlighting the persuasive aspects and c) a linguistic analysis to single out those lexical and grammatical elements that determine the specificity of negotiation as a distinct communicative act.

Negotiation - The Pragma Dialectical Model

In our attempt to study negotiation using a genre - based approach we have chosen the pragma-dialectical theory as an analytical framework.

In the last 20 years a group of speech communication scholars of the University of Amsterdam (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Feteris) together with some colleagues from other universities (Jackson and Jacobs - University of Arizona) have been developing a new method for the analysis of argumentative discourse.

Pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a dialectical process of problem solving and tries to capture how both participants in the process contribute to the interaction:

We view argumentation as the externalizing of a social problem solving process. Argumentation is not so much a process whereby a single individual privately draws a conclusion - as is a procedure whereby two or more individuals try to arrive at an agreement. We take the property of argumentation to reflect a collaborative structure that emerges from dialogic interaction - real or projected. (Van Eemeren et.al, 1993: 12)

The goal of this analysis is to achieve an analytic overview of argumentative discourse that incorporates everything necessary for a critical evaluation of the argumentative discourse.

In analysing argumentative discourse these scholars have developed a pragma-dialectical model of the resolution process, its stages, and the various speech acts that can be encountered. This model serves as a heuristic tool in the analytic process of reconstructing everyday argumentation with its implicit or even ambiguous speech acts. It is called critical discussion and is an ideal, abstract model. The critical discussion can be used as a grid against which real, ordinary argumentation is evaluated.

This theoretical model illustrates the way in which a rational critic would judge reasonably and it comprises an overview of relevant moves through which the process of resolution is achieved. The theoretical model of a critical discussion is dialectical because it starts from the assumption that the two parties try to resolve a difference of opinion by means of a methodical exchange of discussion moves. These moves are described as speech acts performed in a specific situation and context and confer the model a pragmatic dimension.

The critical discussion is a concept central to the Pragma-Dialectical theory, which has many similar points with the concept of ideal speech situation postulated by J. Habermas1. It is considered an ideal model for disagreement resolution that allows the analyst to examine real life disputation practices critically.

A characteristic of this type of discussion is that the participants have symmetrical status and that power does not influence its outcome.

The resolution of a dispute ideally passes through four stages which correspond to four different phases of a critical discussion (van Eemeren, 1992): a) the confrontation stage; b) the opening stage; c) the argumentative stage; d) the concluding stage.

The confrontation stage is the one in which one participant in the critical discussion advances a standpoint which then is questioned by the other side.

The confrontational stage identifies the disagreement zone as the standpoint or standpoints expressed by one of the discussants is rejected or placed under doubt by the other.

In the opening stage one of the discussant who has advanced a standpoint is prepared to defend it while the other is prepared to criticise it. In the opening stage, the parties try to find out whether there is sufficient common ground to make resolution-oriented discussion possible: shared background assumptions, facts, values, procedural agreements.

During the argumentative stage, one of the discussants presents arguments meant to support his/ her standpoint, whereas the other elicits further arguments if he is still in doubt. The argumentative stage is the one in which the complex argumentation patterns are displayed and the outcome of the discussion is established.

The concluding stage is shaped by one of the following two possibilities: the argumentation is accepted as a resolution to the dispute, or the standpoint advanced in the confrontation stage is withdrawn if the argumentation has not been accepted as a suitable resolution.

These stages of the critical discussion are further decomposed into moves and speech acts which accomplish the interactional tasks of each stage.

Arguments are seen as complex speech acts which differ from other types of speech acts (for instance an explanation or a demonstration) as they always accompany a standpoint and have to be accepted/ refuted by the interlocutors. The perlocutionary effect is central to this type of speech act.

The critical discussion acts as a grid against which actual real life disputes or discussions can be assessed via the above mentioned rules. The deviations from the ideal model help the analyst identify the rationality behind the actions of the discussants and the standards of communication to which the discussants hold themselves.

The Analytical Overview

The analytical overview is a procedure whose aim is to reconstruct real life argumentative instances of discourse revealing their basic underlying component parts: the standpoint, the arguments, the conclusions. An example of such an argument structure in given in van Eemeren (92): She'd better not take driving lessons because she is already 61, she panics easily and she will never be able to buy a car out of her pension (van Eemeren et al. 92: 28).

In the example shown above we can distinguish:

a) the standpoint

"She'd better not take driving lessons"

b) First argument

"she is already 61"

c) Second argument

"she panics easily"

d) Third argument

"she will never be able to buy a car out of her pension"

In the course of this reconstruction, the analyst makes use of four types of operations: additions, substitutions, permutations and deletion. Thus, additions make unexpressed steps of an argumentation explicit, substitutions recover the basic underlying speech acts eliminating indirect speech acts, and permutations rearrange the material in order to clarify the dialectical process, while deletion eliminates repetitions, repairs, false starts, jokes. The reconstructed texts are then compared to the theoretical ideal model. The major use of this ideal model and of the conduct rules postulated is to enable the analyst to perform a normative reconstruction of real life argumentative discourse in order to evaluate it, to understand its fallacies and incongruities if present.

Compared to the ideal argumentative conduct, the real life ordinary discourse appears as ambiguous, sometimes without explicitly stated purposes, argumentative roles or argumentative procedures.

A dialectical reconstruction selects those features of the discourse that pertain to the argumentative structures, functions and content, and ignores other aspects that are less important from the dialectical point of view, such as repairs, repetitions, back-channelling, etc.

A dialectical reconstruction identifies and analyses the point at issue in a dispute, the positions of the arguing party, the explicit and implicit arguments, and the structure of each party's argumentation.

The analytical overview highlights those moves in a conversational exchange that are argumentatively relevant in so far as they show the contribution of the arguments to the achievement of the subgoals of the various stages of the critical discussion.

In order to reconstruct this unexpressed information, the analyst has to resort to empirical sources. One of these sources is the knowledge about discourse in general, such as conversational structures and strategies of discourse, the patterning of cohesive devices in the exchange, the turntaking system. Other sources are ethnographic evidence, genre studies, and the conversational cues that show how the participants themselves understand what is going on.

The cues that refer to the participants' understanding of the argumentative force are, among others: pause fillers, restarts, cut-offs which signal orientation of the speaker towards dispreferred turns, etc.

The macrostructure of a text after an analytical overview has applied is shown in Table. 1 below which highlights the main stages and the speech acts most frequently encountered in a critical discussion text.

We consider that his theory best explains how the purpose of negotiation as an argumentative discourse (to reach a compromise) can shape the overall generic structure of this communicative event. It is suitable for the analysis of negotiation because it offers a theoretical model for the evaluation and description of dialogic process-like argumentative discourse types. Besides the normative aspect which enables the analyst to evaluate argumentative discourse (and therefore negotiation) as good or bad, the pragmatic dimension of the theory allows for the identification of the stages and moves that make up the generic structure of a speech event. Pragmatically, any argumentative discourse is made up of speech acts having a communicative and interactional function appropriate to the speech event to which they belong. This pragmatic dimension takes into account the purpose of the speech event and therefore fits in with the generic approach that considers purpose as a main feature that determines the type of genre.

The pragmatic dimension of our approach manifests itself primarily in the fact that the moves that can be made in a discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion are conceived as verbal activities ('speech acts') carried out within the framework of a specific form of oral or written language use ('speech event') in a context of interaction that takes place against a specific cultural historical background. (van Eemeren, 2004: 52)

As far as the theoretical component is concerned, the negotiation model and the critical discussion postulated by the pragma-dialectical theory differ in several ways. Thus, the conflict that has been generated in the critical discussion has as its source a disagreement over public facts and values. The arguing parties search for shared beliefs and values (the common ground) which could serve as basis for the building up of a sound argumentation. The best solution for conflict resolution in this model is to determine which argumentation is most consistent with the common ground of beliefs and values of the arguing parties. According to the rules of conduct in critical discussion, the parties are willing to accept the best argument as the ultimate mode of resolution. The agreement is based on the ultimate mode of conflict resolution. The agreement is based on the conviction of the parties that a certain asserted claim is correct.

The negotiation model differs in that it is not based on shared common ground. The conflict here is generated by a lack of knowledge; it is

an unwillingness of the parties to satisfy someone else's interests at their expense. Where the critical discussion model finds disputants without a common representation of the world, the bargaining model finds them without a joint plan of action. Given the conceptualization of the problem, resolution will be achieved by locating those plans that accommodate the interests of both parties. (Van Eemeren, 2002: 39-40)

Thus, a major distinction between the critical discussion model and the negotiation model can be postulated in terms of goals (Walton, 1998, 2002). While a critical discussion is a persuasive discourse that attempts to solve a disagreement of opinions by clarifying the issue and reaching thus a resolution, negotiation strives for a reasonable settlement which would give both parties some satisfaction24. A resolution, no matter how reasonable it is, or how valid the underlying argumentative chain, will not be deemed satisfactory if it doesn't satisfy the interests of both parties. The conflict in negotiation is not over opinions; it is a conflict of interests.

The analytical view of negotiation texts singles out the basic component parts of every stage. Thus the argumentative stage35, mainly consists of standpoints and arguments, but it also contains those component elements that trigger settlement instead of resolution. For instance, proposals are also present directly or indirectly as part of the bargaining sequence, a basic adjacency pair typical for the discourse of negotiation. This concept was introduced by Maynard (1986) in his analysis of bargaining in the court:

A decision is achieved for a case when each of the parties aligns with the same position.

This achievement can be realised through three different paths or patterns:

1) One party exhibits a position and the second party aligns with it;

2) Both parties exhibit positions and one relinquishes an initial stance to align with the other;

3) The parties compromise. (Maynard, 1986: 171)

The speech acts encountered in the stages of the negotiation model differ slightly from those of the critical discussion, due to the difference in purpose. If the confrontation stage, the opening and even the concluding stage will comprise mainly assertives, declaratives (that are usual for any institutionalized discourse type and serve as discourse management devices) and commissives (agreeing or accepting standpoints, arguments, procedure rules, etc.), the argumentation stage of the negotiation includes commissives in the argumentative stage precisely because commissives mean offers, promises and proposals. Although this type of speech act plays no part in the argumentative stage of a critical discussion, it has a central role in negotiation because proposals are advanced only when a possible compromise is envisaged. Therefore the use of commissives (directly or indirectly) changes to a certain extent the argumentative character of the argumentative stage and therefore in our generic model the name of this stage has been changed to argumentative bargaining stage.

Table 2 below shows a comparison between the critical discussion model and the model we propose for the negotiation discourse.

An important point when comparing the two types of discourse is the problem of relevance. Like in the case of the critical discussion in negotiations, the agenda is set during the confrontation stage. In both types of dialogues, fallacies of relevance occur when one party tries to distract the other, or inadvertently gets off the track of the discussion, by raising questions or putting forward arguments that don't really bear to the central issue. However relevance is different in the two types of discursive activities. In a critical discussion, an argument is relevant to the extent that it bears on proving that one of the original propositions is true or that it subjects the proposition to critical questioning. In negotiation, an argument or other kind of speech act is relevant if it is the right kind of move, like a concession or an offer - that is, a step that contributes to the resolution of the original conflict of interest by agreement of both parties.

In many instances, arguments in negotiation are based on practical reasoning that is goal-directed, based on prior knowledge and actionguided. In the use of this type of reasoning in a negotiation, one party tries to determine what the other party's goals are (based on his commitments, as evidenced by his prior moves in the dialogue) and to raise questions about the means to carry out these goals.

Irrelevant or fallacious arguments in negotiation are those types of arguments that block successful progress of the discussion. One way to prevent this kind of problem is to try to get clear agreement on the issues at the beginning, i.e. during the confrontation stage when the agenda is formulated.

Conclusions

In order to find an adequate analytical framework to capture both the argumentative character of negotiation and its dialogic nature we have resorted to the concepts and methodology of the pragma dialectical theory of argumentation. This theory combines the descriptive and the normative aspects, thus enabling the analyst not only to single out the generic macrostructure of a certain communicative type of activity, but also to evaluate real life instances of discourse as good or bad by comparing them to a normative theoretical model. Starting from the concept of critical discussion regarded as an ideal model against which by means of the analytical overview, real life argumentative discourses could be analyzed and evaluated.

There are important differences between the two types of discourses in point of: purpose, argument function, types of speech acts, types of stages and the issue of relevance The postulated theoretical model of negotiation differs from the critical discussion in purpose .This difference determines other particularities in the outline of stages - the argumentative - bargaining stage acquires a different structure than the argumentative stage of the critical discussion due to the introduction of the bargaining sequence that brings about the settlement of the conflict. The bargaining sequence contains proposals as basic speech acts accompanied or not by arguments. The concluding stage can also have different ending formats in keeping with the purpose of negotiation, namely: compromise, resort to a third party (mediation), or deadlock.

The role of arguments in the two models is also different. Whereas in the critical discussion, arguments play a key role in achieving a reasonable solution to the conflict, in negotiation they can signal the positions and interests of the negotiators, delimiting the zone of agreement and preparing the advancement of proposal. Arguments represent the positions the parties held: arguments may also play the part of indirect proposals or concessions or they can even be seen as signs of misunderstanding rather than as reasonable support for standpoints.

The presentation of our generic model has been a theoretical one although it is based on a corpus of English and Romanian negotiation transcripts. Examples for stages, speech acts and arguments were not given here as they would have required extensive space.47

The use of a pragma-dialectical analysis has highlighted the fact that no matter how different at first the negotiation transcripts may seem, they exhibit a similar overall structure, in which arguments play similar parts and the goals are also the same: to reach a mutually beneficial settlement. Due to the combination of the descriptive and normative aspects of the theory, it enables the analyst to single out the generic macrostructure of a certain communicative event (in our case negotiations) and to evaluate real life instances of discourse as good or bad by comparing them to the normative model.

As a conclusion, we must acknowledge the importance of rhetorical analysis which cannot be ignored even if the focus is on a dialectical analysis. Rhetoric in the pragma-dialectical perspective offers important insights into the positions, interests, attitudes of the discussants, as well as into the second and third order conditions that govern any real life argumentative discourse.

The understanding of rhetoric strategies and their role in discussion may contribute to the development of an argumentative competence in people, a discussion-minded attitude which proves extremely important in a postmodern society in which negotiation has become a way of life.

The study of samples of negotiations in English and Romanian using the model presented above has led us to the conclusion that for this genre at least, differences between the two languages (and cultures) are to be found under the form of preferences for certain styles, rather than as major differences in the generic structure.

The study of generic structures for different types of discourses can be extremely useful in the ESP or EAP classes as it highlights not only the lexical and grammatical aspects, but also the overall structure, the structure of arguments, their role and relevance in a given communicative situation.

Sidebar

Associate Professor Otilia Huţiu, PhD, Department of Modern Languages of "Aurel Vlaicu" University, Arad

Footnote

1 For J. Habermas, the concept of ideal speech situation can be attained through the achievement of a rational consensus. N. Blackie (1996) explains how such a concept works: "For such a consensus to be regarded as perfectly rational, it must be possible to demonstrate that any rational, competent person would come to the same conclusion if they were free of all constraints or distorting influences, whether their source was open domination, conscious strategic behaviour or the more subtle barrier to communication derived from self-deception. Such a set of ideal circumstances he called an ideal speech situation'. Even if such a situation is impossible to achieve, it is nevertheless assumed or anticipated in all discourse (N. Blackie, 1996: 56).

2 van Rees (1994) justly points out an important difference between the problem-solving process and the critical discussion: one is more transactional in nature whereas the other is more interactional. The interactional aspect pertains to the dialectical nature of the discourse while the transactional aspect highlights the fact that discourse activities may bring about changes into the real world through their effects.

3 Some speech acts are ideally suited to achieve a specific interactional purpose or goal, or are even, through the essential conditions, immediately related to that objective. In this way, argumentation is related to the objectives of convincing and persuading.

4 For an extensive analysis which uses the proposed model see Huţiu, O., The Discourse of Negotiation in English and Romanian - A Contrastive Analysis, Editura Universităţii "Aurel Vlaicu", Arad, 2007.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Corbett, E.PJ, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, New York, Oxford Univerisity Press, 1971.

Cody, M. J., Persuasive Communication, Harcourt Brace Coolege Publishers, 1994.

Drew, P. and Herritage, J., Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, CUP, 1992.

Duff, D., Modern Genre Theory, Longman, 2000.

Fairclough, N., Language and Power, Longman London, 1989.

Fairclough, N., Discourse and Social Structures, Longman London, 1996.

Feteris, E., Pragmatic Argumentation in Legal Context, 2002, in van Eemeren, H. Advances in Pragma-Dialectocs, Sic Sat Amsterdam, 2002.

Firth, A., "Accounts" in Negotiation Discourse: a Single Case Analysis, Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 1995, p.199-226.

Firth, A., The Discourse of Negotiation. Studies of Language in the Workplace, Pergamon London, 1995.

Huţiu, O., Ponta, M., Field Variant Arguments Used in the Discourse ofNegotiation, in English Language and Literature Studies: Interfaces and Integrations ELLSII75 Proceedings, Volume 1, Belgrade, 2006, p. 441-451.

Huţiu, O., The Discourse ofNegotiation in English and Romanian - A Contrastive Analysis, Editura Universităţii "Aurel Vlaicu" Arad, 2007.

Maynard, D., Inside Plea Bargaining. The Language ofNegotiation, Plenum Press New York and London, 1984.

Superceanu, R., The Rhetoric Scientific Articles, Timişoara, Editura Orizonturi Universitare, 1998.

Swales, J. M., Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings, CUP, 1990.

Scollon, R.; Bhatia, V, Blurred Genres and Fuzzy Identities in Hong Kong Public Discourse, Applied Linguistics 20/1, 1990, p. 22-43.

Thuderoz, C., Negocierile. Eseu de sociologie despre liantul social, (translated from French into Romanian), Ştiinţa Chişineu, 2002.

Van Eeemeren H., Grootendorst, R., Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, Amsterdam, Sic Sar International Centre for the Study of Argumentation, 1994.

Van Eeemeren H., Grootendorst, R., Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic Sat Amsterdam, 2002.

Walton, D., The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument, University of Toronto Press, 1998.